Voting has begun in Russia's general election, with citizens in the far east of the country going to the polls long before they open in the west.

Eleven parties are competing for places in the lower house, the Duma - though it is not clear how many will win the 7% needed to qualify for seats.

Opposition parties have accused the government of stifling their campaigns and of intimidation.

Independent monitors say their attempts to observe the poll have been hampered.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has abandoned its plans to send a big team of election observers to Russia after accusing the Russian government of imposing unacceptable restrictions and of deliberately delaying the issuing of visas. Russia has denied the claims.

CHAVEZ AND PUTIN ARE TWO THUGS EMBOLDENED BY THEIR OIL WEALTH, AND RUTHLESSLY SEEKING POWER.

(UPI) - Russian President Vladimir Putin and leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared Monday that they would form a strategic alliance against U.S. dominance as the world's only superpower.

Putin and Chavez, who had extensive talks, discovered that they had much in common. Chavez declared to the media that they were now "good friends."

The two have somewhat similar backgrounds. Putin, 47, is a former KGB officer and ex-leader of the FSB secret service who is busy restoring federal control over independent-minded Russian regions and is widely seen as a much more authoritarian ruler than predecessor Boris Yeltsin. The 46-year-old Chavez is a former paratrooper who led a failed coup before being elected president and has threatened to rule Venezuela by decree under a proposed state of emergency.

Putin praised the Venezuelan as "a young and energetic leader of the new generation of politicians who understand the national interests of their countries and pay great attention to the development of" bilateral relations.

Chavez responded by declaring that "a strategic alliance, has begun, a joint path."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is in Russia to do some large-scale weapons buying. Later this week his journey will take him on to other destinations, including Iran. Unsurprisingly, the controversial president’s trip is being watched with great interest in Washington.Mr Chavez and Mr PutinThe question being asked as Mr Chávez visits Russia is what does Venezuela want with all these weapons? This week, the Venezuelan head of state is expected to place orders for around one billion dollars worth of Russian military hardware, including 24 fighter planes and 30 helicopters.His country also wants to acquire licenses so it can manufacture Russian weapons at home. Russia, on the other hand, sees these transactions with Venezuela as a way of gaining access to the Latin American weapons market.

WE IGNORE THESE TWO TYRANNICAL THUGS AT OUR PERIL - AND THAT OF THE ENTIRE FREE WORLD.

Snow and ice plastered a wide area of the Midwest on Saturday, interrupting campaigning by presidential hopefuls, disrupting airport and highway traffic and killing at least two people.

The National Weather Service posted winter storm and ice warnings across parts of Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, the eastern Dakotas, Illinois and northern Michigan, although some warnings were lifted by midday.

Six to 16 inches of snow was forecast in parts of Minnesota.

Much of Iowa was hit by snow, sleet and freezing rain.

Hundreds of flights were canceled at airports in Des Moines, Chicago and Milwaukee.

Officials decided to close Des Moines International Airport for several hours after a United Airlines plane slid off a taxiway as it was heading to a runway for a flight to Chicago's O'Hare, said airport spokesman Roy Criss.

He said none of the 44 passengers was injured and the airport reopened by mid-afternoon.

In a sign that Iran has hardened its position on its nuclear program, its new nuclear negotiator said in talks in London on Friday that all proposals made in past negotiations were irrelevant and that further discussion of a curb on Iran’s uranium enrichment was unnecessary, senior officials briefed on the meeting said.

The Iranian official, Saeed Jalili, also told Javier Solana, who represented the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany in the five-hour talks, that United Nations Security Council resolutions punishing Iran for not suspending its enriched uranium activities were illegal, the officials said.

Representatives of the six countries met in Paris on Saturday afternoon to discuss further punitive Security Council measures against Iran after the final talks in London failed to produce a breakthrough.

REPEAT:

In a sign that Iran has hardened its position on its nuclear program, its new nuclear negotiator said in talks in London on Friday that all proposals made in past negotiations were irrelevant and that further discussion of a curb on Iran’s uranium enrichment was unnecessary, senior officials briefed on the meeting said.

THE DYE IS CAST.

SANCTIONS ARE BS: NOTHING SHORT OF A TOTAL BLOCKADE WILL HAVE ANY EFFECT.

AND A BLOCKADE IS AN ACT OF WAR - FOR WHICH WE SHOULD EXPECT THE SAME REACTION FROM IRAN AS A MISSILE ATTACK - EXCEPT THAT AN EFFECTIVE MISSILE ATTACK (UNLIKE A BL0CKADE) SHOULD LEAVE THE UNABLE TO RETALIATE.

THAT'S WHY, IF BUSH HAD BALLS, HE'D JUST GET THE INEVITABLE OVER WITH: BOMB THEM NOW: UNILATERALLY; PREEMPTIVELY; AND UTTERLY: SMASH ALL THEIR NUCLEAR, MILITARY, AND GASOLINE REFINING ASSETS. NOW.

Hillary Rodham Clinton got a reminder in Iowa today of just how divisive the issue of immigration is –- on both sides of the ideological spectrum. She drew a lusty chorus of boos from advocates of laws permitting illegal immigrants to become citizens as she spoke at the Heartland Forum, a Democratic presidential forum organized by a collection of community groups here.

It happened as Mrs. Clinton was pressed on whether she was prepared, within the first 100 days of her presidency, to push through legislation that would give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. The question drew applause.

“I have been in favor of a path to citizenship for years,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a transcript provided by Radio Iowa. “I voted it in the Senate and, as president, comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me.”

She drew a scattering of applause but her questioner pressed Mrs. Clinton about whether she would do that in her first 100 days.

The Democratic presidential candidates braved the ice and snow covering the streets of Des Moines to attend the Heartland Presidential Forum in Des Moines Saturday afternoon. Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd and Obama spoke at the forum. Clinton spoke to the crowd via phone. She had initially canceled her appearance yesterday during the hostage crisis at her field office in Rochester, NH.

The forum, organized by three non-profits, brought together groups of community leaders from Iowa and several other states who worked on issues like farming, immigration and urban poverty. Assembled on the stage were groups of three individuals who told personal stories and asking pointed questions like, "Do you think corporate America has too much power?" But most significantly, it gave a voice to the group of individuals at the crux of one of the most heated political debates in this election cycle -- illegal immigration.

Mayte, a young woman who immigrated with her mother from Mexico when she was 6, made a fiery and teary plea for immigration reform to allow young women like her who had been educated in the United States and were contributing to American society a chance to fully integrate by becoming legal residents. Clinton, in responding to the young woman's story, was booed loudly several times for her answers on immigration reform.

The senator was asked if she would "make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" during her first 100 days in office. Clinton responded saying, "I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me."

Soft booing could be heard from the audience. The man repeated his question about the first 100 days. Clinton replied, "Well you've to get congress to pass the legislation and the president to do as much as possible, which I will do." Louder boos came from the crowd.

Clinton was thanked for her appearance and the moderator expressed sympathies for the ordeal she suffered yesterday. Clinton thanked the moderator. More booing could be heard from the crowd again after she hung up the line.

The Iowans at this forum are different than Iowans elsewhere - THEY ARE THE HARD LEFT OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY. AND THEY CALL THE SHOTS NOW.

Meanwhile, the Vast majority of Americans of both major parties and independents DON'T WANT THE FEDS TO PRETEND TO MAKE THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM GO AWAY BY MAKING THE ILLEGALS LEGAL.

THE PROBLEM ISN'T THAT THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IS ILLEGAL. (THOUGH THAT'S WHAT THE LIBS THINK!) THAT'S THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS PROBLEM.

Senator Biden has apparently decided to make threatening the President with impeachment a big part of his campaign. In an appearance in , New Hampshire, he offered the following:

"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.

The extreme left enthusiastically endorses this approach, as evidenced by the Nation:

Picking up a theme that has been championed by another contender for the Democratic presidential nod, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is now talking about impeachment on a regular basis as he campaigns in the first-caucus and first-primary states.

Biden's mincing no words as he explains the position he initially took during the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas.

Speaking in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, this week, Biden declared, "The President has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran and if he does, as foreign relations committee chairman, I will move to impeach."

There are, however, a couple of problems with Senator Biden's threat.

First of all, it should be obvious that the President of the United States does indeed have more than sufficient authority to "unilaterally attack Iran." Ever since the advent of long-range bombers armed with nuclear weapons in the late 1950s, it has been recognized by everyone beyond the first or second grade that the President has authority to order instant, emergency military attacks. There is nothing new about that, and the armed forces would certainly obey a President's order to attack any country in the defense of the United States.

So Joe Biden is just plain wrong about that.

But more importantly, and more surprisingly, Joe Biden is completely mistaken about his ability to move for the President's impeachment.

According to the United States Constitution, motions for impeachment begin in the House of Representatives, and are then judged by the Senate.

Article I, Section 2

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3 Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Joe Biden is threatening something that he has no power to deliver. (Very typical of the Democratic Party, by the way.) And by pre-announcing his intentions, he is also disparaging his potential ability to serve as an impartial judge.

Can he really be that stupid?

And if not, is he really so evil as to think that the American people are stupid enough to accept his inflammatory, over-the-top rhetoric?

But that answer is wrong. The Second Amendment doesn't "give" anybody any rights at all. The purpose of the United States Constitution is not to "give" individuals or groups any rights, but to compel the Federal government, and thereby State and local governments, to recognize and respect the rights that individuals already have.

Here's what the Second Amendment says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, presupposes that people already have rights, and does not presume to grant or define those rights. It merely notes that the right "to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So where did that right come from? This is what another of our founding documents has to say about that:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The right of self-defense is an obvious extension of the right to life, and it is a basic and eternal endowment of mankind.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution acknowledge the supremacy of Natural Law. No man-made government, no matter how "democratic," can promulgate any law which would deprive human beings of the rights with which their Creator endowed them. This open acknowledgment of the supremacy of our God-given rights is the surest guarantee of our freedoms.

The Second Amendment does NOT"give" individuals the right to bear arms. God gave us that right. The Second Amendment explicitly forces our government to respect the right that God gave.

"Arabs do not respect a weak prime minister," opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu said Thursday following the Annapolis summit, which he described as "a failure."

He said there was "a virtual element" to the conference. "It was as if we were talking peace with a courageous partner but (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud) Abbas has difficulty ruling his own mukata," Netanyahu told Army Radio.

Netanyahu went on to say that the PA president had not stepped down from any of his demands, adding that "he even wants to join Gaza and the West Bank through the Negev."

The opposition leader said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made concessions "before Annapolis, during Annapolis and after Annapolis," referring to the supply of armored vehicles to PA forces, to Olmert's refusal to demand that Palestinians stop terror and incitement before negotiations begin, and to the prime minister's comments earlier Thursday that Israel would be "finished" if a two-state solution was not reached.

Olmert made the latter comment in an interview with Haaretz, saying that the alternative to the creation of a Palestinian state is a South African-style apartheid struggle.

"The day will come when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights," the prime minister had said. "As soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."

Referring to the interview, Netanyahu said: "Israel is not finished. It continues and will continue to exist. Reconciliation will not come from a position of weakness; a position of: 'I will accept all your demands or I will disappear into the sea.'"

He said this was not the way to achieve peace, adding that "Arabs don't respect a weak prime minister."

"Tell me one thing we gained at Annapolis?" Netanyahu continued. "We allowed the Palestinians to avoid fighting terror, a condition set in the Road Map. Abbas now doesn't need to do anything. This is the opposite of what is required for peace and security."

Regarding contacts with Syria, Netanyahu said it was acceptable to talk but it "depends on what is being said," asserting that Israel must demand that Syria halt weapons smuggling to Hizbullah and stop allowing Khaled Mashaal and other Hamas leaders to reside in the country. "It is not embarrassing to demand things from Arabs," he added.

Concerning coalition members Shas and Israel Beiteinu, Netanyahu said: "They said they would leave the government when core issues are raised, so this is what the public expects. They tell me that nothing has happened yet, but I disagree."

The opposition leader warned that due to now-inflated Palestinian optimism created at Annapolis there was a risk of a third intifada breaking out when the Palestinians don't receive what they were now expecting.

It's high time already that Shas for starters be pressed on the subject and a demand be made that they pull out of the government already. They're making themselves look ridiculous, and certainly disgraceful, by remaining in the government.

He served in the House of Representatives for eight years, followed by eight years as a U.S. senator, followed by eight years as Vice President of the United States. In 2000, as the Democratic nominee for president, he won the popular vote by a plurality. Oh yeah, in 2007, his movie won an Academy Award and he also won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Seems to me, his resume is more formidable than the top three current democratic candidates combined.

But the Democrats wouldn't know gravitas if it hit them over the head, so infatuated are they with the style of their candidates over their substance. How many times have we heard Barack Obama referred to as a "rock star"? Or about the "star power" Bill would offer on the campaign trail if Hillary is the nominee?

And then, there's Al Gore. He's someone all Democrats already take pride in for a variety of reasons.

... Whether you agree with his Global Warming stance or not (I don't), or whether you think he should be wearing earth tones or not, Al Gore is by very far the most substantial candidate the left has and yet it continues to ignore him.

I DON'T THINK THE LEFT IS IGNORING AL GORE; I THINK THEY KNOW HE WON'T RUN. WHY WON'T HE RUN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reiterated his refusal on Saturday to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Israel Radio reported.

"Historically, there are two states - Israel and Palestinian. Israel has Jews and other people, and this we are ready to recognize, but nothing else," the radio quoted Abbas as saying shortly after he landed in Saudi Arabia after brief stops in Egypt and Jordan.

IF ABBAS CAN'T DO THIS, THEN THERE CAN BE NO DEAL. EVEN OLMERT WON'T MAKE A DEAL.

SO WHAT'S NEXT? ANNEXATION + EXPULSION? NO. GIVING THE WEST BANK TO JORDAN? NOT LIKELY.

THE sun was glaring down on the Swiss Alps. Bronzed 30-somethings in designer sunglasses and tight T-shirts were draped over extra-large lounge chairs that lined the deck. Euro-pop music played from multiple speakers as fetching young waiters served expensive bottles of Champagne and cheese plates. It might have been August at a Nikki Beach Club — except for the splotches of snow, mountain vistas and overworked snow machines. [YEAH, RIGHT!]

It was my second day at the glamorous Arosa ski resort in eastern Switzerland, and I had yet to hit the slopes. Instead, I was jostling with Chanel-toting Europeans for sun chairs at Arosa’s mountaintop restaurant, and floating in the glittering swimming pools of the Tschuggen Grand Hotel’s futuristic new spa.

Could this be the future of Alpine skiing? With glaciers melting and snow packs shrinking, ski resorts in the Alps are trying to stay ahead of global warming, not only by installing more snowmaking guns, but also by transforming their resorts with colossal spas, sleek architecture and other off-slope attractions.

If this message from the Sergeant doesn't send chills down your spine and bring a tear to your eye, well, you may not be human.

An interesting fact that many of you may be unaware of is the historic events that surrounded a Jewish chaplain on [Iwo Jima, where of 70,000 American Marines, 1,500 were Jewish].

Rabbi Roland B. Gittelsohn, assigned to the Fifth Marine Division, was the first Jewish chaplain the Marine Corps ever appointed. Rabbi Gittelsohn was in the thick of the fray, ministering to Marines of all faiths in the combat zone. His tireless efforts to comfort the wounded and encourage the fearful won him three service ribbons. When the fighting was over, Rabbi Gittelsohn was asked to deliver the memorial sermon at a combined religious service dedicating the Marine Cemetery.

Unfortunately, racial and religious prejudice led to problems with the ceremony. What happened next immortalized Rabbi Gittelsohn and his sermon forever.

It was Division Chaplain Warren Cuthriell, a Protestant minister, who originally asked Rabbi Gittelsohn to deliver the memorial sermon. Cuthriel wanted all the fallen Marines (black and white, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish) honored in a single, nondenominational ceremony. However, according to Rabbi Gittelsohn's autobiography, the majority of Christian chaplains objected to having a rabbi preach over predominantly Christian graves...

To his credit, Cuthriell refused to alter his plans. Gittelsohn, on the other hand, wanted to save his friend Cuthriell further embarrassment and so decided it was best not to deliver his sermon. Instead, three separate religious services were held. At the Jewish service, to a congregation of 70 or so who attended, Rabbi Gittelsohn delivered the powerful eulogy he originally wrote for the combined service:

Here lie men who loved America because their ancestors generations ago helped in her founding. And other men who loved her with equal passion because they themselves or their own fathers escaped from oppression to her blessed shores. Here lie officers and men, Negroes and Whites, rich men and poor, together. Here are Protestants, Catholics, and Jews together. Here no man prefers another because of his faith or despises him because of his color. Here there are no quotas of how many from each group are admitted or allowed.

Among these men there is no discrimination. No prejudices. No hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest democracy! Whosoever of us lifts his hand in hate against a brother, or who thinks himself superior to those who happen to be in the minority, makes of this ceremony and the bloody sacrifice it commemorates, an empty, hollow mockery. To this then, as our solemn sacred duty, do we the living now dedicate ourselves: To the right of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, of White men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the democracy for which all of them have here paid the price.

We here solemnly swear this shall not be in vain. Out of this and from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn this, will come, we promise, the birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere.

Among Gittelsohn's listeners were three Protestant chaplains so incensed by the prejudice voiced by their colleagues that they boycotted their own service to attend Gittelsohn's. One of them borrowed the manuscript and, unknown to Gittelsohn, circulated several thousand copies to his regiment. Some Marines enclosed the copies in letters to their families.

An avalanche of coverage resulted. Time magazine published excerpts, which wire services spread even further. The entire sermon was inserted into the Congressional Record, the Army released the eulogy for short-wave broadcast to American troops throughout the world and radio commentator Robert St. John read it on his program and on many succeeding Memorial Days.

In 1995, in his last major public appearance before his death, Gittelsohn reread a portion of the eulogy at the 50th commemoration ceremony at the Iwo Jima statue in Washington, D.C. In his autobiography, Gittelsohn reflected, "I have often wondered whether anyone would ever have heard of my Iwo Jima sermon had it not been for the bigoted attempt to ban it."

All my life I have prided myself as a reasonable and compassionate person - and someone with sympathy for the plight of immigrants. That has all gone out the window in recent years, as the number of illegals and the crimes they commit has become an obscenity, compounded by the obvious attempts by illegals to make over the United States into some kind of Mexican tributary, where Spanish is the "official" language, and the tax receipts from citizens support their lifestyle.

I have lost all sense of compassion and reason; I want it stopped, and I have no compassion left for the children or any other unfortunate victims of this whole disaster. It's just too bad. Build the fence; shut down the illegal entries; raid the businesses employing them, and when we stumble on them, ship them out. Then, when we have reestablished our sovereignty and our control over our own borders, I will be in a mood to listen to plans for temporary workers' permits and some way to earn legal citizenship. Until then Mr. Huckabee can just go jump in a lake.

By Stephen Dinan - Groups that support a crackdown on illegal aliens haven't settled on their champion in the race for the White House, but there's little doubt which Republican scares them most — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

"He was an absolute disaster on immigration as governor," said Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a group that played a major role in rallying the phone calls that helped defeat this year's Senate immigration bill. "Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens."

As Mr. Huckabee rises in the polls, his opponents are beginning to take shots at him on immigration. Just as problematic for the former Arkansas governor, however, is that the independent interest groups that track the issue are also giving him the once-over, and don't like what they see.

"Huckabee is the guy who scares the heck out of me," said Peter Gadiel, president of 9-11 Families for a Secure America, a group instrumental in fighting for the REAL ID Act that sets federal standards for driver's licenses.

Some leaders said Mr. Huckabee reminds them of President Bush, who pushed for legalization of illegal aliens and a new supply of foreign guest workers, despite his base calling for better border security and enforcement.

"I would say that Huckabee comes from the same perspective on the issue that George W. Bush came from — that out of a strong sense of compassion, he tries to identify with someone who comes to the United States, even if they came illegally," said Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies.

Mr. Huckabee yesterday defended his record, but he said if voters are looking for the toughest guy, he's not their man.

"Is my answer satisfactory to all the Republicans? The answer's 'no.' " he said. "Some people want me to be a lot harsher. I think my answer is the honest and the right one."

The former governor said the borders should be secured and said he opposes sanctuary cities shielding illegal aliens and opposes amnesty, though he does think illegal aliens can be put on a path to citizenship — something many conservatives equate to amnesty.

But he said he finds a lot of anger and frustration directed at immigrants who don't speak English.

"Unfortunately, instead of being angry at the federal government for totally failing us in this, they sometimes get angry at the people themselves," he said.

He also said he's willing to take the heat for pushing for illegal alien students to be able to get taxpayer-funded financial aid and college scholarships.

"Our country is better than that, to punish children for what their parents did in breaking the law. If that costs me the election, it costs me the election, but somewhere along the line we cannot just pander to the anger and hostility without challenging it," he said.

Mr. Huckabee said he will produce a full plan to address illegal entry at some point, and he said he hasn't worked out specifics yet for who would get a path to citizenship and how.

"At some point, they do have to go back and start, they do have to pay a monetary fine, there has to be some type of restitution made for the law that has been broken, but it has to be reasonable and commensurate with the violation," he said.

As Mr. Huckabee's campaign gains attention — he is polling in first place in Iowa, the site of the first nominating contest — his immigration stance is getting a closer look. Fellow candidate Mitt Romney questioned him about his financial aid plan during Wednesday night's debate, and the video of that made the rounds of the immigration-control groups yesterday.

None of the groups has endorsed any candidates in the Democratic or Republican races, and they are divided on who the best candidate is.

On Thanksgiving, Mr. Beck wrote an e-mail to his supporters praising the immigration plan of Fred Thompson, a former senator who is running for the Republican nomination and who has called for attrition through enforcement.

"I really was blown away. I said, my gosh, this is an incredible platform," Mr. Beck said in an interview this week.

James J. Boulet Jr., executive director of English First, which wants to make English the official language of the government, said Mr. Romney had the best official record on that issue, opposing bilingual education during his term as Massachusetts governor.

Both Mr. Romney and Mr. Thompson have said they wouldn't create a new pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, and Mr. Romney also has hinted he wants illegal aliens to go home through attrition. But Mr. Beck said Mr. Thompson's plan is the most detailed at this point, and he praised Mr. Thompson's call to even end some immigration programs such as the diversity visa lottery.

"The fact that he has OK'd these positions on such a volatile topic shows he really takes voters' concerns seriously and he believes there ought to be more than just sound bites about it," Mr. Beck said.

Reps. Ron Paul of Texas, Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Duncan Hunter of California all win near universal praise from the group leaders, but the leaders question whether any of the three have a shot at winning the nomination. Most of the leaders dismissed Arizona Sen. John McCain, a longtime advocate of legalizing illegal aliens, saying he appears to have little shot of winning the nomination.

As for Rudolph W. Giuliani, several leaders said his record as New York mayor was worrisome — he ran a sanctuary city, which means the identity of illegal aliens was kept from authorities in some cases — but they are impressed with his tough border-security position.

You know that famous question Kerry the traitor asked in 1971, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

As if Vietnam was a mistake. Which it was not.

The very same doves - including Kerry the traitor, and his fellow MA Senator and murderer Teddy Jo Kennedy - asked the very same question regarding Iraq, as if getting rid of Saddam was a mistake. Which it was not.

So now - with it all but obvious the Surge worked and that we're winning in Iraq, (and in Afghanistan) - I want to pose a version of that question to Harry "we've lost" Reid and Nancy "for the children" Pelosi:

How do you ask a Dem to be the last person to vote "NO" on funding a war we're winning?

FOR THE SAKE OF VICTORY AND PEACE I DEMAND THAT CONGRESS PASS A BILL FUNDING FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

NOT PASSING A FUNDING BILL IS TANTAMOUNT TO SURRENDER.

MAYBE THIS IS WHAT THE DEFEATOCRATS WANT?

THEY ABANDONED SOUTH VIETNAM; THEY WILL DO THE SAME TO IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

The behavior the Associated Press describes in this report from Khartoum, Sudan, does not strike us as completely normal:

Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Muhammad." In response to the demonstration, teacher Gillian Gibbons was moved from the women's prison near Khartoum to a secret location for her safety, her lawyer said. The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gibbons, who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes. . . .

Meanwhile, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Council on American-Islamic Relations have had the following to say about Gibbons's plight: . It's a statement that is all the more powerful for its brevity.

A U.S.-based television channel investigating the existence of the legendary Yeti in Nepal has found footprints similar to those said to be that of the abominable snowman, the company said on Friday.

A team of nine producers from Destination Truth, armed with infrared cameras, spent a week in the icy Khumbu region where Mount Everest is located and found the footprints on the bank of Manju river at a height of 2,850 metres (9,350 feet).

One of the three footprints discovered on Wednesday is about one foot long, or is of similar size and appearance as shown in sketches of the mystical ape-like creature believed to live in snowy caves, the TV company said.

"It is very very similar," Josh Gates, host of the weekly travel adventure television series, told Reuters in Kathmandu after returning from the mountain."I don't believe it to be (that of) a bear. It is something of a mystery for us," said Gates, 30, an archaeologist by training.

Tales by sherpa porters and guides about the wild and hairy creatures lurking in the Himalayas have seized the imagination of foreign mountain climbers going to Mount Everest since the 1920s.

WHEN THEY FIND THE YETI, MAYBE THEY CAN ASK HIM IF HE BELIEVES IN KUCINICH'S FLYING SAUCER, AND RATHER'S TANG MEMOS.

Friday, November 30, 2007

There's more to life than war, taxes and politics - and a lot of it's more fun, too! That's why every WEEKEND, here at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, we post some of the cultural things we're into, things we think you might also find entertaining, enriching, and stimulating.

After all, the arts - ALL ARTS, not just fine arts - are a big part of what our liberty is for, and what we're fighting to defend!

THIS WEEK: GABRIEL FAURE - A FEW DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE PAVANE, AND HIS VERSION OF LIBERA ME:

The plan is for a huge and imposing edifice, financed by Wahhabi money and implemented through the proselytizing organization Tablighi Jamaat. The structure will dominate the London skyline adjacent to the site of the Olympics.

To an infidel, this is an obvious declaration by Islam: “We are the future of Britain. Get used to it.”

But there is a large and growing movement in Britain to stop the mega-mosque. Ordinary people have risked the new law against “inciting religious hatred” and banded together in their determination to prevent the mosque from being built.

We believe firmly in the UK’s history of cultural freedom, diversity and integration.

In the UK Muslims have the right to worship, as do Christians, Hindus and those of other faiths.

However, we object to the establishment this particular mega-mosque, by this group, and we are grateful for our democratic right to oppose it. This website will explain the reasons for that opposition.

This website will be both respectful and reasoned, reflecting our commitment to diversity and to the democratic society we live in.

We deplore both the grandstanding politics of mega-mosque supporter Mayor Ken Livingstone at one extreme, and the hate-mongering of the political far-right at the other.

We are concerned citizens and we intend to represent the moderate middle on this nationally significant issue. We base our opposition to the mega-mosque on reason and evidence.

THE BURGEONING IMMIGRATION OF MUSLIMS INTO THE WEST IS A TROJAN HORSE.

THEY'RE EITHER BLOWING THEMSELVES UP IN SUBWAYS - IN ORDER TO COMMIT GENOCIDAL JIHADO-TERROR, OR THEY ARE STEALTHILY CONQUERING FROM WITHIN - OFTEN BY CYNICALLY USING OUR ECUMENICAL NATURE AND OUR SECULARISM AGAINST US...

IF EUROPEANS DON'T START DRAWING THE LINE - AND PUSHING BACK - THEY WILL SOON BECOME AS EUROPEAN AS TURKEY, WHICH IS TO SAY: MUSLIM.

BYZANTIUM IS GONE - SWALLOWED BY ISLAMO-HEGEMONY, AND SO TOO MIGHT THE REST OF EUROPE. WITHIN OUR LIFETIMES.

THE POSTMODERN LEFTISTS -- WHO CONTROL MUCH OF THE MSM AND MAKE UP THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BUREAUCRATIC ELITES (AS BRUCE BAWER HAS DESCRIBED) -- HATE THE WEST AS MUCH AS THE ISLAMO-FASCISTS, AND THEY ARE AIDING AND ABETTING THIS INVASION.

I SEE THE BATTLE AGAINST THE MOSQUE AS MORE THAN SYMBOLIC.

IF WE LOSE HERE, WE WON'T RETAIN EUROPE AS PART OF THE WEST. NOT WITHOUT A LOT OF BLOODSHED - WHEN, SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THE PLEBES WHO LOVE THEIR CULTURE FIGHT BACK:

IF THE GOVERNMENT WON'T COUNTER THE BURGEONING ENCROACHMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA'S MOSQUES, AND IF THE COPS WON'T FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE "YOUTHS" OF THE VARIOUS EUROPEAN INTIFADAS, THEN THE PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO TAKE THE DEFENSE OF THEIR CIVILIZATION INTO THEIR OWN HANDS.

Lawyers and their supporters chanted slogans in opposition to Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, for his treatment of the judicial system. They were marching to the home of the former Supreme Court chief justice Mohammed Iftikhar Chaudhry, who is under house arrest in the capital, Islamabad.

WELL, WELL, WELL... MUSHARRAF HAS TWO SETS OF ENEMIES: JIHADISTS AND LAWYERS.

SERIOUSLY: WE MUSTN'T ABANDON MUSHARRAF THE WAY JIMMY CARTER ABANDONED THE SHAH, AND THE WAY THE DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS ABANDONED SOUTH VIETNAM IN 1975 - (TWO YEARS AFTER THE LAST US COMBAT TROOPS HAD LEFT).

AND KEEP IN MIND THAT MUSHARRAF'S ANTAGONISTIC RIVALS - BHUTTO AND SHARIF - ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA THAN HE IS.

There are only four groups of people who are generally not allowed to vote in the U.S. now, and the Left wants to enfranchise more of all of them: children, criminals, noncitizens, and the mentally ill.

Now, no doubt—as National Review’s Jonah Goldberg has observed—much of this is politically driven: The Left thinks that all these groups (with the possible exception of the latter) are more likely to vote with them than against them, and it may well be right.

CLEGG DOES A LOT OF POSTURING AND OVER-ANALYZING OF THE ISSUE.

IT'S REALLY SIMPLE: IF YOU CAN'T WIN ELECTIONS WITH LAW-ABIDING ADULT CITIZENS YOU SHOULDN'T BE ON THE BALLOT.

EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS NOT A US CITIZEN.

AND THEY HAVE NO HUIMAN RIGHT TO BECOME ONE AUTOMATICALLY, EITHER.

THEY DON'T ALL PAY OUR TAXES, OR FIGHT IN OUR WARS, OR LEARN TO MAKE OUR HISTORY THEIR HISTORY.

CITIZENSHIP IS A PRIVILEDGE.

AND EVERYTHING THE LEFT WANTS TO DO WOULD MAKE IT LESS SO.

BTW: IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT AND OPPOSE GIVING FELONS AND NON-CITIZENS, NON-ENGLISH-SPEAKERS AND CHILDREN THE VOTE, THEN WHY NOT LEAVE THEM, ONCE AND FOR ALL!?

IF THE DEMOCRATS DON'T VALUE VOTING AS MUCH AS YOU DO THEN THEY DON'T DESERVE YOUR VOTE.

Authorities charged a married man Thursday with slipping his girlfriend an abortion drug that caused her to miscarry twice.

Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, of Appleton, was charged with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree murder of an unborn child, stalking, burglary and two counts of violating a restraining order.

His attorney, Thomas Zoesch, said he expected his client to plead not guilty.

Patel and his girlfriend, 39-year-old family physician Darshana Patel, have a 3-year-old child together, authorities said. They are not related, and he is married to someone else; Patel is a common Indian last name.

Darshana Patel became pregnant two more times but miscarried in December and September, Outagamie County sheriff's Capt. Michael Jobe said.

A week or two before her second miscarriage, Manishkumar Patel bought her a smoothie at an ice cream shop, Sheriff's Sgt. Ryan Carpenter said. Darshana Patel noticed white powder on the rim and, feigning illness, took the drink back to her office.

Suspecting she had been slipped mifespristone, the abortion pill also known as RU-486, Darshana Patel sent a sample of the smoothie to a California lab for analysis, Carpenter said.

When it tested positive for the drug, she approached the sheriff's department Nov. 1. Manishkumar Patel was arrested Wednesday.

Court Commissioner Brian Figy ordered Patel held on $750,000 bail after prosecutor Mark Schroeder said he had a net worth of $400,000 and investigators found evidence he had been looking at flights to Germany.

A Wisconsin man is facing attempted murder charges after allegedly giving his mistress a drug that caused two miscarriages.

Manish Patel is accused of slipping the drug mifespristone, also known as the abortion pill RU 486, into his girlfriend's drink during two separate pregnancies. The 39-year-old woman, who is a family physician, miscarried both times.

During her second pregnancy she became suspicious of a powder on the rim of a drink Patel bought her.

She had the substance tested and results confirmed it was the abortion drug. She then went to the county sheriff's office.

Investigators said they couldn't find a similar case anywhere in the country.Patel, a legal immigrant from India, is being held on $750,000 dollars bond.

If convicted under Wisconsin's fetal homicide law he could be sentenced to life in prison.

LUFKIN, Texas - In explicit letters written from jail, often signed with "love," 19-year-old Gerardo Flores tells his girlfriend how unworthy of him she is.

"Well, you fat, ugly troll I guess I'll let you go cuz I got tired of writting you and thinking what to put down, so hopefully I'll be especting a letter from you," Flores wrote in one of his handwritten letters to Erica Basoria, whose last name he sometimes spells "Basura," which in Spanish means trash.

Flores was convicted earlier this month on two capital murder charges for stepping on his pregnant girlfriend's stomach and causing the deaths of their unborn twin sons. He was sentenced to life in prison.

After Basoria, now 17, miscarried in May 2004, she signed an affidavit on Flores' behalf claiming she beat herself in the stomach and twice asked Flores to stand on her belly - once two weeks before she miscarried and a second time a week before.

Prosecutors, however, believe Basoria was abused by Flores and never asked him to stand on her growing abdomen nor inflicted any injury on herself.

Angelina County Assistant District Attorney Art Bauereiss says Basoria was just as much the victim of an abusive man as the twins she carried. Basoria was not charged in the twins' deaths.

For some, Flores' conviction has called into question the fairness of Texas' fetal protection law, which gives a fetus legal standing but exempts mothers and health care providers who perform a legal medical procedure.

"It's unfair that a doctor can perform an abortion, a wife can perform an abortion on herself ... (but) the person who helps them can go to prison for the rest of their life," said Flores' attorney Ryan Deaton, who plans to appeal Flores' conviction.

Deaton claims the law, passed in 2003, violates the equal protection clauses of both the U.S. and Texas constitutions.

Others, like Joe Pojman, executive director of the Texas Alliance for Life, which helped craft the fetal protection legislation, say the law is constitutionally sound and working as intended.

"Even the laws that protected babies from abortion before Roe vs. Wade in Texas and elsewhere, in no cases were women prosecuted under the laws," he said. "It was always the third party."

I THINK THE LAW SHOULD PROTECT THE FETUS/BABY/HUMAN-IN-THE-WOMB FROM WHOMEVER IS TRYING TO KILL IT.

Apparently James Flynn and Charles Murray have had another public debate about black/white IQ. Flynn is the only Leftist who is capable of sustaining an informed debate on the matter (people like Gardner and Sternberg are off with the fairies). There was another debate between Flynn and Murray a year ago. The report of the latest debate is by John Derbyshire, who is as cautious and polite as ever.

It is really sad to hear that Flynn is still leaning heavily on the Eyferth study. Flynn himself knows the problems of generalizing from that study and I point them out with my usual brutal frankness here. Flynn is a perfectly competent IQ researcher so why he clings to something so unhelpful to his case is quite a mystery. It must just be that curious Leftist inability to cope with the world as it is. In Flynn's case it is denial on a pathological scale.

If anything, the Eyferth study shows the central role of genetics in IQ. The study found that the children of black American GIs and white women had similar IQs to whites. But blacks at the time had to pass the same IQ test as whites to get into the army. So what the study shows is that what IQ tests test for is genetically transmitted! And it shows that it was genetically transmitted AMONG BLACKS! Nasty! Putting it another way, it shows that only a subset of blacks especially selected by IQ tests will get results similar to whites. Why Flynn thinks that study helps his case is rather a mystery. It does make him look like some sort of mental case.

The other study mentioned by Derb is the Ogbu ("Shaker Heights") study. Black researcher Ogbu found that the children of middle class blacks did not do as well at school as the children of middle class whites. Ogbu himself attributed that to an anti-intellectual culture among blacks and there is no doubt that such a culture exists. A more straightforward explanation of his findings, however, is that affirmative action makes it easy for blacks of only average ability to rise into the middle class whereas whites have to be above-average to get there. So the children simply reflect the genetic endowment of their parents.

There is also a statistical effect known as regression to the mean that could be at work in the Ogbu study. The effect says that parents who are exceptional within their group will IN GENERAL have less exceptional children. That regression to the mean effect has always been a bit of a teeth-grinder for me, in fact. It has always had me wondering about how bright my son would turn out to be. His recent achievements in mathematics have allayed such doubts rather convincingly, however.

The error comes in taking a group difference, which may or may not be real, and using it to judge the worth of individuals.

That is racism.

That's a quote from Nigel Hawkes, the Chief Health Editor of the London Times.

He is 100% correct. And no racist. Quite the opposite.

Group differences are real.

They are reasons to do away with groupist quotas, set-asides and with affirmative action, and to re-invigorate the marketplace with meritocratic practices which correctly judge individuals as individuals with NO attention paid to their membership in any group, race or class.

But top Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili said the discussions werepositive and more would be held.

The US and its allies are now expected to press for more sanctions on Tehran, but Mr Jalili said such pressure would not make Iran curb its nuclear plans.

The UN is demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment.

Iran says its programme is peaceful, but some Western powers fear it is seeking to make weapons.

'I expected more'

The two envoys emerged after five hours of talks and spoke to the media separately, giving dramatically different interpretations of the outcome.

BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says Mr Solana was looking for signs that the Iranians were prepared to suspend uranium enrichment work as demanded by the UN Security Council, but his comments after the talks suggest there has been no progress on the issue.

"I expected more and am therefore disappointed," the EU official said.

"I will be in telephonic contact with the Iranians before the end of December," he added, saying the envoys would meet again if circumstances permitted.

Now that you are done reading that, reread the first four paragraphs of the BBC article. What you will find is that the situation is exactly the same as it was last year this time. It is also exactly the same as it was the year before, and the year before that.

The situation has not changed at all.

If nothing changes, nothing will change.

Mr. Solana ought to be disappointed with himself. After all, he has been ignoring reality for years now, and he has been doing it with regard to one of the biggest problems facing our world today.

By David Evans. David is a mathematician, a computer and electrical engineer and is head of Science Speak. David is also a former believer in man-made warming who converted to skeptic. The summary below is an introduction to a larger paper that can be read here (PDF)

Our scientific understanding of global warming has gone through three stages:

3. From Aug 2007: Know for sure that greenhouse is not causing global warming. CO2 no longer a suspect.

The paper discusses how the ice core changes, missing greenhouse signature in the real data and the recent waning of the warming all suggest that carbon emissions are not behind the changes we have experienced in recent decades.

The IPCC 2007 report (the latest and greatest from the IPCC) is based on all scientific literature up to mid 2006. The Bali Conference is the bureaucratic response to that report. Too bad that the data has changed since then!

During the fighting in 1947-1948, about three-fourths of a million Arabs fled or were driven (both are true in different places) from Israel and found refuge in the neighboring Arab countries. In the same period and after, a slightly greater number of Jews fled or were driven from Arab countries, first from the Arab-controlled part of mandatory Palestine (where not a single Jew was permitted to remain), then from the Arab countries where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries, or in some places for millennia. Most Jewish refugees found their way to Israel.

What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of populations not unlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in the previous year, when British India was split into India and Pakistan. Millions of refugees fled or were driven both ways -- Hindus and others from Pakistan to India, Muslims from India to Pakistan. Another example was Eastern Europe at the end of World War II, when the Soviets annexed a large piece of eastern Poland and compensated the Poles with a slice of eastern Germany. This too led to a massive refugee movement -- Poles fled or were driven from the Soviet Union into Poland, Germans fled or were driven from Poland into Germany.

The Poles and the Germans, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, all were resettled in their new homes and accorded the normal rights of citizenship. More remarkably, this was done without international aid. The one exception was the Palestinian Arabs in neighboring Arab countries.

The government of Jordan granted Palestinian Arabs a form of citizenship, but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, maintained by U.N. funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth or fifth generation.

The reason for this has been stated by various Arab spokesmen. It is the need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate entity until the time when they will return and reclaim the whole of Palestine; that is to say, all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. The demand for the "return" of the refugees, in other words, means the destruction of Israel. This is highly unlikely to be approved by any Israeli government.